Hold the front page. Richard Black, discussing the preposterous use of models by a group of scientists in Oxford to “prove” that higher levels of flooding in the UK in 2000 were undoubtedly caused by CO2, actually quotes a “sceptic”, who seemingly disagrees with the the analysis. Except that Bjorn Lomborg – though he once wrote a book called the “Skeptical Environmentalist” – is anything but, as a moment’s research reveals. So this is yet another example of dishonest reporting. Mr Lomborg actually firmly believes, just like Mr Black and his cronies, that greenhouse gases are causing global temperatures to rise and also that tens of billions of pounds should be spent on combatting this alleged menace. His only difference of opinion with the green creed is that people should learn to adapt to climate change, not spend their time whinging.

Meanwhile, American Thinker has unearthed some very interesting background material on the roots of the green religion that Mr Black and his BBC chums so fervently support. I reported yesterday about Mr Black’s one-sided enthusiasm for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s call for mass social engineering and population control to combat climate change. Such views are a central tenet of the green movement. It’s increasingly clear that the origin of these thoughts is actually mired firmly in Nazi ideology and they were first articulated and advocated in the post war era by Gunther Schwab, a wartime member of the Nazi party. He and his fellow party members wanted massive social engineering in line with their crude and ruthless beliefs in eugenics and social Darwinism, the twin concepts that underpinned and led directly to the Nazi genocide of Jews, Roma people, Slavs, Negroes, gays, the mentally ill and infant social “imbeciles”. In my book, nothing in what today’s greens who inhabit bodies like the Royal Commission are calling for is different. It’s the callous logic of ruthless centralised control. “Fascist” is a label that in my view is bandied about too often, but here, it is clearly appropriate. Black&co are advocates of eco-fascism.

Update: those who argue that we are doomed because of rising population and that therefore social engineering is vital (and I know because I used to be one of them) seem totally impervious to the facts, as a post below illustrates. They are on a socialist, world-saving mission, but for those who want to read further with an open mind on this topic, I recommend this, or Matt Ridley’s excellent The Rational Optimist. In 1972, the Club of Rome pronounced authoritatively that there would be mass starvation in 2000; ten years on, we are feeding almost 7bn people at a better level than we did when there were 3bn and standards of living are rising almost everywhere. And yet still the anti-liberal, world-government-supporting social engineers out there want to impose more laws of the type that Hitler deployed.

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to ECO-FASCISTS

  1. Guest Who says:

    yet another example of dishonest reporting’

    I gave up on him ages ago more because of his lack of competence on matters of science… as well as his curious selectivity on sources and facts.

    His blog has become a laughing stock, and now simply exists to provide sport for two camps trying to knock semantic spots of each other.

    I have to concede that those who exist to tease him can go too far, and OT, but recognise the evident frustration at the cherries he chooses to pick, or not (he of course coined ‘watertight oversight’ for the BBc suddenly having a selective fit of rigour when it comes to the calibre of ‘information’ from ‘sources) that inspires doubt or mockery with just about anything he writes about, as it is one of the few outlets of response across the entire BBC enviro infirmament.

    His latest is about whaling, and I did wade through. Worth it as, in amongst the comments, there were points of view that were noteworthy in contrast to his ‘reporting’.

    Were that every BBC broadcast provided with such an opportunity for added input. Sadly most go out, and most of the public only receive, a unique form of PR as news  ‘journalism’ that does seem too too often fall more under advocacy.

    And that is surely not what the public should be compelled to pay for?


  2. Nick Darlington says:

    Hi – I added a post on WUWT yesterday regarding the BBC & CAGW – thought I would repost here as it seems equally relevant! Regards, Nick (had to trim it a bit)

    BBC Radio 4 last Saturday I listened to what is occasionally an interesting program – ‘Excess Baggage’ – half hour collection of traveller’s exploits usually in obscure parts of the world. Of course as this is the impartial BBC, the opportunity to promote CAGW always lurks somewhere. This week no exception with a report of a journey which reminded me of the Caitlin expedition – pointless but warmer and certainly unquestioning – just like the BBC presenter who was obviously in awe of these intrepid folks.  A journey around much of the Atlantic coast visiting places and people ‘threatened’ by rising sea levels. This ‘Atlantic Rising’ team did much of the travelling by Land Rover, although this particular Land Rover had a name – Beatrice. Perhaps giving the vehicle a name reduced the likelihood that they would be instantly branded as unthinking  CO2 emitters as you would normally expect from the BBC and its eco-cronies?  I aspire to owning a Land Rover, although I haven’t achieved this yet but I am more determined to do so as a result of the icy grip that global warming has had on my part of northern England in the past few years. I see that Land Rover partnered the trip and who can blame them? I would travel everywhere in one if I could afford the vehicle, the fuel and the UK CO2 tax.

    Have a look at the links – it’s all very predictable stuff.

    Royal Geographical Society in conjunction with the BBC

    Journey of a Lifetime is a grant of £4,000 for an original and inspiring journey anywhere in the world, awarded to those with a curiosity about the world and the desire to communicate with a wider audience.

    The winner receives radio and broadcast training from the BBC, and records their journey for a BBC Radio 4 documentary.




  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    The thoughts of Sue Townsend

    The Today Programme at 8.55am devotes 2-3 minutes to somebody read out the anti-monarchist thoughts of Sue Townsend. And that’s it – no comeback, no discussion, no alternative view.

    Thanks BBC.


  4. Gerald says:

    Steady on please on the opposition to anybody advocating population control.

    It has been the elephant in the room on man made global warming policies. IF man is the problem then population control must be the way forward.

    That notwithstanding lack of poulation control is now, and likely to be even more of a social unrest problem to come for the world. Populations in the Arab world and Africa have been burgeoning in recent decades but of course as they come to adulthood there is nothing for them to do nor possibly soon water and food to sustain them either. One possibility is of course for the excess to be allowed unrestricted entry to the EU to find jobs and /or support there.

    Of course the previous administration tried out that policy here with stunningly happy results, yet on The Moral Maze recently half the panellists seemed quite happy to support unrestricted immigration!


  5. London Calling says:

    There are parts of the world that might reduce their poverty rather than their carbon footprint – starting here:

    Seven births per mother – average. (Clue: Africa)

    Where is Bob Geldoff when you need him?


  6. ChrisM says:

    The watermelons don’t seem to get the fact that the best way to reduce overpopulation is to make poorer countries more wealthy. Its been shown that if the per capita income goes above 7500 dollars then the birthrate per mother drops significantly.

    The best way to increase their income per capita is to help them generate more electricity.

    And the best way to help them generate more electricity is to develop  the Liquid Floride Thorium reactor. They are very safe. When developed, cheap to build with no chance of nuclear proliferation and the world has enough reserves of thorium to last thousands of years.
    Still that would be too easy when we spend all our money on wind turbines that don’t work.


  7. DP111 says:

    Quote: I reported yesterday about Mr Black’s one-sided enthusiasm for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s call for mass social engineering and population control to combat climate change. Such views are a central tenet of the green movement. 

    Then why is it that we are importing millions of Muslims to the West, where their “carbon footprint” goes up vconsiderably . We should not allow any immigrants from Third world countries, but also impose a maxiumum 2 children per woman policy globally.

    I can see that going down well in Islamic countries, where the population boom, and the resulting scarcity of jobs and food,  is the main cause of the current unrest.

    Will the BBC start a programme of educating the Third World, specially Islamic countries,  to lower their populations pronto?  


  8. Umbongo says:

    On the Telegraph website here Louise Gray (“Queen of the press release”) is being torn to shreds by commenters for her Black-like uncritical transmission of the results of a primed model.  
    Without evidence to the contrary (like full and unrestricted access to the raw data, any adjustments to the data and the results, together with full disclosure of the computer algorithms used – how likely is that for anyone outside the charmed circle of believers?) it can be assumed that the model is primed to highlight any natural weather-related disaster as being a consequence of “global warming”.  Moreover, insofar as Black’s take on this panic notice is accurate, the logic step from AGW to disaster is missing.   There is no evidence, apparently, from this gang of “scientists” that the warming “causing” the floods is anthropogenic.  Accordingly there’s not a lot we can do about it despite the hysteria exhibited (according to Black) by
    Christiana Figueres.


    • John Horne Tooke says:

      Does Louise follow Black or vice versa?


      • Guest Who says:

        Maybe they quote each other, to create an impression of cross-media story heft, and ‘balance’?

        Usually it’s a piece of BS research or twitter gossip from an activist group that the Graun publishes, Black swallows, and then the two bat back and forth as it is now ‘in the media’.


  9. Gerald says:

    Population control.

    I know what I meant but seem to have missed out the word “growth” between population and control in my earlier message.

    Hoping we start here by introducing a “only two children 0 -18” qualify for any state cash hand out. That might have a surprising effect among the presently more fecund sections of the population!

    I am not saying the state will not educate, deny medical care etc. but will not put other taxpayers cash in your hand if you do have more than two.

    On the Today programme today I recall someone saying it’s hard to live on benefits – but seemingly less so if you have several children.

    Family of 2 + 4 require a job paying about £35k to equate to overall benefits. Given the “choice” what would you do? 


  10. RGH says:

    Doesn’t your heart just sink when the name Black appears on the Science/Environment page….and one almost loses the will to live when the expression ‘scientists say.’ ends the sentence.

    The AGW narrative is wearing so thin that it is quite predictably annoying….and shot to pieces elsewhere almost as soon as it is posted.

    Can the BBC not see that there has been a sea-change in the public understanding and perception of AGW?


  11. OWEN MORGAN says:

    Can the BBC not see that there has been a sea-change in the public understanding and perception of AGW?”

    You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you, but I’m afraid the BBC is desperately playing the “climate change” card now.   They get the propaganda into just about every Radio 4 programme, plenty of stuff on the box, even the odd item on Radio 3.   If they could slip a reference to “global warming” into Beethoven’s Seventh, I bet they would.


  12. DP111 says:

    Be very very careful

    Another Liberal Ponzi Scheme
    By Michael Fraley

    Again, the governments will force banks to sell Green bonds, and when they fail, it will be the greedy bankers who will be blamed.


  13. Cassandra King says:

    The alarmists at the BBC have yet to clearly inform us of the actual supposed rise in global average temperatures, they will twist and turn and evade and escape, here are the actual figures for 1998 to 2010 based on a GAT series from wikipedia which is a bastion of CAGW alarmism that the BBC are so keen to hide from us.

    1998 = 14.4C
    1999 = 14.3C
    2000 = 14.2C
    2001 = 14.4C
    2002 = 14.4C
    2003 = 14.4C
    2004 = 14.4C
    2005 = 14.5C
    2006 = 14.5C
    2007 = 14.5C
    2008 = 14.4C
    2009 = 14.4C
    2010 = 14.5C

    These are the alarmists own figures which exclude the margin of error, it turns out that there is a very good reason why the CAGW alarmist BBC are so keen on selectively editing out even their own figures.
    Since 1998 the global average temperature rise has been a mere ONE TENTH OF ONE DEGREE! And when the margin of error is included we see no actual warming at all and this is using the alarmists own highly adjusted manipulated data.
    The BBC is hiding the truth, it cannot even bring itself to openly use the figures its CGAW alarmist allies cook up, it tries to mislead and confuse and conflate and lie and cheat. We are meant to support the spending of hundreds of billions of pounds on CAGW because of a supposed 0.1C rise in global temperatures? The BBC is evil.


  14. tendryakov says:

    Now I can see why the Finns have such an abysmal un-prosperous quality of life, and only a mere three quarters of them have a second home with a sauna in the country –  it’s because they’ve only got 5 million people! Silly Finns! And I can see why the Bangladeshis are so clever to have tripled their population in a mere 50 years. All they have to do now, to reach our level of prosperity is to get to work on making those 160-170 million people prosperous, which will take a mere – 2 months? 2 years? 2 decades? And I have no doubt that  they’ll decide to have fewer babies until they have attained the level of prosperity at which they decide to have fewer babies. Em, that’s right, isn’t it? And them Egyptians, they’re adding a million to the population every 9 months. Brilliant! But surely, if they tried a bit harder, they could make it 2 million new mouths to feed every 9 months? That way they’d get prosperous twice as fast. Wouldn’t they?
    Peculiar, eh, how libertarians and the far left agree on one essential article of faith: to improve your quality of life you have to churn out babies. After all, women in the third world just adore dying prematurely young having done their duty to their husbands and their culture. Not one woman in the third world would ever stoop so low as to use a contraceptive even if you offered them to them. Honest. Believe me. And if they did, their husband would beat them or get a new wife.